High speed rail ridership figures challenged

Peninsula group claims Rail Authority based figures on flawed, undisclosed model

The agency charged with building California's controversial high-speed rail system is basing its ridership and revenue forecasts on a deeply flawed model that hasn't been adequately reviewed, a Palo Alto-based watchdog group is alleging.

Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), said she learned last week that the model the California High-Speed Rail Authority has used to project ridership figures for the Southern-to-Northern California rail line differs from the one the agency has disclosed in public documents. The group has been scrutinizing high speed rail reports, monitoring pending legislation and promoting more public participation in the planning process.

Rail officials acknowledged that the ridership model used in the latest business plan included coefficients and constants that were not disclosed in the final report. But they maintain that the updates were so minor that they didn't warrant publication.

But Alexis, a financial analyst, said the new business model -- which had not been subjected to a peer review -- is seriously flawed. Last week, she obtained a memo from the rail agency's transportation consultant, Cambridge Systematics, indicating that regional transportation officials made a conscious decision not to publicize the most recent methodology in the final report, completed in July 2007.

The memo, written by Cambridge manager George Mazur and addressed to Nick Brand of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said the decision not to include the updated model in the final report was made by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission -- the agency that commissioned Cambridge to do the study.

"The client, MTC, elected not to update the Task 5a report nor to include the final coefficients and constants in the final project report," Mazur wrote.

That sentence makes the document a "smoking gun" memo, Alexis and Councilman Larry Klein agreed in an interview at the Weekly.

Alexis, who lives in Palo Alto, posted all the ridership documents on the CARRD Web site, She said the group aims to make the rail design process more transparent and to encourage more community involvement in the planning process.

Alexis told the Weekly that the Rail Authority's failure to publish a more detailed model is worrisome given that the ridership figures it yields are used to justify numerous decisions about the design of the $44 billion system -- including the decision to build the rails along the Pacheco Pass route rather than through the Altamont Pass.

She made a similar argument Sunday, when she discussed the rail project on Philip Maldari's radio show on KPFA. Alexis appeared on the show with Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt and Robert Doty, director the Peninsula Rail Program for the Rail Authority and Caltrain.

"You started with some bad data and you got bad results," Alexis said.

But transportation officials dispute her characterization and say the differences between the 2006 model, which was publicized in Rail Authority documents, and the 2007 model, which was not, are subtle and would not have made a difference in the Pacheco vs. Altamont debate.

Jeff Barker, the Rail Authority's deputy director for communication, said the ridership model has undergone a series of revisions and will continue to change as the agency gathers more information. There's nothing strange about the latest revision getting left out of a report, Barker said.

"We are constantly updating the ridership model, but we're not republishing it every single day," Barker told the Weekly. "This is a model that will continue to be refined and tweaked."

He also said the agency's decision to choose to run the rail line through Pacheco Pass and up the Peninsula instead of through the Altamont Pass in the East Bay was based on many factors, including environmental impacts and input from local officials and transportation agencies. The ridership figures were just one of the factors under consideration, he said.

MTC Planning Director Doug Kimsey also said the differences between the older model and the updated one were too minor to warrant publication.

"Bottom line is that the final changes in the 2007 model update were minor enough to neither update the final report nor undergo additional peer review," Kimsey wrote in an e-mail response.

Doty, who is in charge of the Bay Area segment of the line, said on KPFA that it's impossible for the authority to obtain predict exact ridership numbers at this time. He compared ridership predictions to conducting a weather forecast in terms of accuracy.

But he agreed with Alexis that it's important to have the figures as close to reality as possible in order to design a system that makes sense.

"My immediate concern is making sure it's designed for the right requirement," Doty said. "If they're feeling like it doesn't sound right, or doesn't feel right, we have a problem and we need to correct it."


Like this comment
Posted by NeHi
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 9, 2010 at 4:53 pm

"You started with some bad data and you got bad results," Alexis said.

Sounds like they started with bad data and got better results.

They have also revised the projected cost of a trip to L.A.; guess which direction.

But we won't have to waste time going thru security will we??

Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Jackson Park
on Feb 9, 2010 at 5:08 pm

They put out bad data because the average voter is a non-thinker and votes solely based on his or her immediate needs or what they think would be a neat idea.

Like this comment
Posted by ActLocally
a resident of Shoreline West
on Feb 9, 2010 at 10:53 pm

Alexis' efforts to making the h/s rail project transparent are to be applauded. MTC comments on the radio program were very vague and (I would say) dismissive in not providing details on the route choice.

Her website has a lot of useful information:
Web Link

Doty compared ridership numbers to predictions of the weather?? Does he forget that ridership numbers are a large part of what justifies the project?? Shall we continue to entrust our tax dollars to a dismissive bureaucrat who holds such a flippant and arrogant attitude?

Like this comment
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Feb 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm

The High Speed Rail project is a joke. The cost will end up being around $100 Billion which we can not afford and for what. We have several airlines competing for our business and will fly us to LA at 500 miles per hour in complete safety. I have lived in California for almost 50 years and there has been only one airline crash between the bay area and the LA area and that was by a crazy person shooting the pilot which is now impossible. Let's kill this project and spend a few bucks on our kids education and the like.

Like this comment
Posted by Marty
a resident of another community
on Mar 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Robert Doty, the director of the Bay Area segment of the Boondoggle Railroad, stated it is "impossible to predict exact ridership numbers - that forcasting ridership is like predicting the weather".

Then why do we need to pay for this consulting firm Cambridge Systematics?

This entire project is just a way of railroading taxpayers out of their money. It is a waste of time, and a huge waste of money.

Trains, including high speed trains, are yesterdays technology.
Airplanes make this trip daily; faster, cheaper, and safer.
They fly over cities, not through them.

Why won't the politicians just be honest and tell us what this is about; a make work project for their friends ; business consultants, architecture firms, engineering firms, construction companies, and corrupt unions - and donors to their campaigns.
Career politicians love this project because they get to doll out billions. Nobody cares about if it is needed, necessary, or even cost wise. Or the effect on the communities they fail to serve.

This project can only be stopped by throwing out career politicians; starting with Anna Eshoo.

The only thing high speed about this is how fast they can ram it through your community; the goal is to get it "To big to Fail!",(remember that from the investment banks?) to a point which it will have to be nurtured with more and more and more tax dollars.

Bart to the airport was a failure, today trains run empty across massive infrastructure , ( one overpass crossing built over highway 101 is not even being used!). Look who was behind that: Quintin Kopp.
Get a real job Quintin, stop sponging off the public.
We need are billions for police, schools, and health care, not a silly useless train nobody will use.

High Speed Rail, The Amtrak of Tomorrow.

Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Mar 12, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Marty, I'm going to steal your Amtrack comment and use it every time this comes up in conversation-- good one!

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

By Laura Stec | 30 comments | 1,936 views

Nobu Palo Alto eyes next-door expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,753 views

Are We Really Up To This?
By Aldis Petriceks | 3 comments | 1,309 views

Couples: Initiators and Implementors
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 853 views


Top restaurants to check out

Mountain View Voice readers have officially decided. See which local restaurants and businesses can now claim the title — Best Of Mountain View 2017.

View Winners